Relative importance of dynamic and static environmental variables
as predictors of amphibian diversity patterns
Carola Gómez-Rodríguez a, *, Carmen Díaz-Paniagua a, Javier Bustamante a,
Laura Serrano b, Alexandre Portheault a
a
b
Estación Biológica de Doñana, CSIC, P.O. Box. 1056, E-41080 Sevilla, Spain
Department of Plant Biology and Ecology, University of Sevilla, P.O. Box. 1095, E-41080 Sevilla, Spain
a b s t r a c t
Keywords:
Richness
Beta diversity
Habitat variability
Temporal dynamics
Pond hydroperiod
Nestedness
In this study, we evaluated whether static approaches, such as including only habitat characteristics that
do not change over time, are adequate for the assessment of diversityehabitat relationships. We assessed
the contribution of habitat characteristics that change over time to the spatial pattern of diversity
(variation in species richness and in assemblage composition) in comparison to those characteristics that
do not change. We have also provided an integral analysis to evaluate the role of the hydroperiod in
structuring amphibian assemblages at any diversity level, including variation in species richness, variation in assemblage composition (i.e., nested pattern or species turnover) and variation in beta diversity.
We monitored 19 amphibian assemblages from 2003 to 2006 in a highly fluctuating ecosystem, the
temporary ponds in Doñana National Park. Both sets of habitat variables (temporally fixed and temporally variable) were necessary to develop a realistic understanding of amphibian diversity patterns, both
when considering data collected in particular years or over several years. We found that environmental
attributes that are irrelevant for pond species richness (alpha diversity) might be responsible for the
variation in assemblage composition among ponds (beta diversity) and, hence, contribute to species
diversity in the entire study area (gamma diversity). Therefore, we illustrate the need for an integral
analysis of diversity in order not to disregard any relevant habitat factor. Alternatively, the relevance of
the hydroperiod was not constant across time and was negligible in the wet year, while, in the dry year,
we observed a strong nested pattern along the hydroperiod gradient and small differences in species
predominance among assemblages. Therefore, our results show two conservation priorities in the study
area: the preservation of ponds along the wide hydroperiod gradient; and a particular concern for the
preservation of ponds with a long duration because they will provide a breeding habitat for most species
in unfavourable years.
© 2010 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
A central question in ecology is explaining the spatial variation
of diversity (Gaston, 2000). In a stable system, the spatial environmental variation largely explains the spatial variation in the
incidence or abundance of species and the assembly of species in
space (Stiling, 1999). However, stable systems are more the
exception than the rule because both communities and habitats
may change over time (Ricklefs and Schluter, 1993). In fact,
temporal variation in communities and habitats are related
processes in an ecosystem and, in many scenarios, temporal
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 954 46 67 00; fax: þ34 954 621125.
E-mail address: carola@ebd.csic.es (C. Gómez-Rodríguez).
changes in community composition can be attributed to temporal
changes in environmental characteristics (Houlahan et al., 2007).
Therefore, the spatial variation of diversity will not be constant over
time in temporally variable ecosystems because it will be
responding both to spatially fixed environmental variation (not
changing over time) and to environmental characteristics that
change both over time and space. If we could disentangle the role of
fixed and fluctuating environmental characteristics as drivers of the
spatial pattern of diversity, we would ascertain whether static
approaches to the assessment of diversityehabitat relationships are
adequate. From a practical standpoint, the main advantage of static
approaches is the low data collection costs because they do not
require simultaneous field sampling of habitat characteristics.
Instead, these approaches are mostly based on cartographic environmental data.
651
Ecological theory implicitly assumes that environmental variables determine, at least in part, species distributions across space
(Hutchinson, 1957) and, thereby, promote the existence of different
species assemblages (spatial diversity) along environmental
gradients. Following Legendre et al. (2005) and Tuomisto and
Ruokolainen (2006), the distribution of communities along environmental and spatial gradients can be evaluated at three different
levels: (1) the community composition; (2) the variation in
community composition (beta diversity), considering either species
incidences or species abundances; and (3) the variation in the
variation in community composition (variation in beta diversity).
The relevance of differentiating the variation in species richness
from the variation in community composition lies in the fact that
two sites may have exactly the same number of species but
completely different community compositions. In recent years, the
interest in beta diversity has increased because of its contribution
to the understanding of spatial patterns in diversity (Arponen et al.,
2008; Baselga and Jiménez-Valverde, 2007; Soininen et al., 2007). A
particular concern in many diversity studies has been the ability to
differentiate the effects of spatial and environmental variation,
both in richness gradients (Baselga, 2008; Lobo et al., 2001) and
beta diversity (Baselga, 2008; Borcard et al., 1992; Parris, 2004). The
purpose has been to discriminate the role of dispersion/migration
processes and species ecological requirements. However, the
assessment of the relative contribution of habitat characteristics
that change over time in comparison to those that do not change
remains untested. Partitioning the effect of temporally fixed and
temporally variable habitat characteristics is relevant because it
will help to clarify whether temporal environmental variability
should be explicitly accounted for in diversityehabitat models. In
this sense, it seems reasonable to expect that habitat characteristics
changing over time (i.e., water physico-chemical characteristics)
would influence diversity patterns at specific sampling dates,
whereas habitat characteristics that do not change over time (i.e.,
geographical position) would mostly influence diversity patterns in
the medium or long term.
The main aim of this study is to contribute to the understanding
of the adequate time frame (annual or medium term) needed for
diversityehabitat studies given the nature of the environmental
data available (temporally fixed or temporally variable). We use an
amphibian community breeding in Mediterranean temporary
ponds as a model system. Several studies have investigated the
influence of environmental gradients on amphibian richness
gradients and/or the variation in assemblage composition by
including both temporally fixed and temporally variable habitat
characteristics (i.e., Beja and Alcazar, 2003; Brodman et al., 2003;
Knutson et al., 2004); however, none of these studies have explicitly accounted for the temporal variability in the system. This point
might be critical in diversity model outputs because wetlands are
unstable and dynamic per se (Fjeldsa and Lovett, 1997), and many
amphibian communities change from year to year (Hecnar and
M’Closkey, 1996b; Trenham et al., 2003). Moreover, pondbreeding communities are partly structured on an annual basis by
species responses to current hydrological conditions (Church,
2008). For all these reasons, our purpose is to discern whether
amphibian communities are determined by stable habitat characteristics and/or particular annual conditions. In other words, we use
amphibians breeding in temporary ponds as a model system to
integrate the spatiotemporal dynamism of habitats with the spatial
distribution of diversity.
In particular, i) we assess the spatial distribution of diversity in
the study area and ii) evaluate the relative importance of temporally fixed and temporally variable habitat characteristics as drivers
of amphibian diversity. To do this, we assess the contribution of
each set of habitat variables to explain ii (a) richness gradients and
ii (b) variation in assemblage composition among ponds. Both
analyses were computed for annual fauna and for fauna observed
over a four-year period (cumulative fauna).
In addition to these global analyses, we also conducted a specific
set of analyses iii) to evaluate the unique contribution of the pond
hydroperiod in structuring amphibian assemblages in the study
area. The hydroperiod is regarded as a major force structuring pond
communities (Wellborn et al., 1996) and, for that reason, its relationship with amphibians has been tested both experimentally
(Leips et al., 2000; Maret et al., 2006) and in the field (Baber et al.,
2004; Pechmann et al., 1989; Snodgrass et al., 2000b). We evaluated
whether the hydroperiod explained species richness gradients and/
or whether it was responsible for the variation in assemblage
composition among ponds (beta diversity pattern). Moreover, we
discriminated among different types of beta diversity patterns,
such as a nested pattern or a species turnover pattern, which are
opposite patterns (Leibold and Mikkelson, 2002). A species turnover pattern reflects the tendency for species to replace each other
(Leibold and Mikkelson, 2002), while a nested pattern illustrates
that the species composition of species-poor assemblages is a nested subset of species rich assemblages (see Patterson and Atmar,
1986; Ulrich et al., 2009). Similarly, we also tested if differences
in the hydroperiod could explain the variation in beta diversity
observed in the study area. Therefore, with this approach, we have
assessed the extent to which we could use hydroperiod categories
to discriminate ponds with different amphibian assemblages.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Study area
The study was conducted in an area of 6794 ha within Doñana
National Park, in southwestern Spain (see Siljeström et al., 1994 for
a geo-morphological description). The dominant vegetation in this
area is Mediterranean scrub (Halimio halimifoliieStauracanthetum
genistoides and Erico scopariaeeUlicetum australis as defined by
Rivas-Martínez et al., 1980) and isolated patches of pine (Pinus
pinea L.) and juniper forests (Juniperus phoenicea L.).
Many temporary ponds of natural origin occur on the sandy area
of the park (see Gómez-Rodríguez et al., 2008). The duration of
flooding (or hydroperiod) varies among ponds, from pools persisting one month or less to ponds persisting up to 10 months in
very wet years. The pond hydroperiods show large inter-annual
variation depending on rainfall input and pattern (GómezRodríguez et al., 2010a, 2009). We chose 19 temporary ponds, all
of which are dry every summer (a detailed description of these
ponds can be found in Gómez-Rodríguez et al., 2009). These ponds
were selected to cover the hydroperiod gradient in amphibian
habitats in the study area.
2.2. Amphibian sampling
From 2003 to 2006, an intensive monthly survey was conducted
during each of the following sampling seasons: FebruaryeMay
2003, JanuaryeMay 2004 and MarcheMay 2006. The ponds did not
flood in 2005 and, therefore, could not be sampled. Additionally,
reasons why some ponds could not be sampled include the
following: two ponds were not accessible in 2004; in 2003, one
pond was only accessible in May; and in 2006, two ponds were
flooded for less than one month. We used dipnetting techniques
(Heyer et al., 1994) to collect and identify larvae to the species level
in situ (from hereafter referred to as “larval sampling”). We counted
the number of larvae captured in each sampling unit (three
consecutive sweeps on a stretch of approx. 1.5 m) and then released
them in the pond. For most ponds, we set 12 sampling units as the
standard sampling effort. Sampling units were separated
a minimum of 5 m to avoid interference between surveys. Small
ponds were sampled in proportion to their size, so the number of
sampling units could decrease to guarantee minimum separation
(5 m). In large ponds, we tried to sample all different microhabitats
and increased the number of sampling units performed. The
effectiveness of larval sampling and the level of completeness of the
pond inventories were high as evidenced by two non-parametric
richness estimators (level of completeness estimated with
ACE ¼ 93.6% + 11.7 [S.D.]; with Chao 1 ¼ 98.6% + 5.3 [S.D.])
computed with EstimateS (Colwell et al., 2004), and the fact that
the probability of having detected each species was high after the
sampling effort in each season (see Gómez-Rodríguez et al., 2010c).
Larval sampling was complemented with visual surveys in and
around the pond to detect eggs, larvae and metamorphic individuals. Visual surveys were conducted regularly, starting when ponds
filled (November 2002, November 2003 and January 2006).
Because larval sampling was a standardised protocol, it provided
data on species relative abundance, whereas the larval sampling
combined with visual surveys provided data on species presence/
absence and species richness.
2.3. Environmental and spatial variables
We selected habitat variables relevant for amphibian habitat
selection based on the available ecological information. We differentiated between two types of habitat variables: (i) those changing
over time (WATER), such as the hydroperiod and water physicochemistry; and (ii) site/landscape variables (POND/LANDSCAPE),
which do not vary with time. WATER variables are measured in situ
because their values change between surveys and/or years,
whereas POND/LANDSCAPE variables may be extracted from
available cartographies or orthophotos.
2.3.1. Water-related characteristics (WATER)
We included hydroperiod, a major structuring factor of pond
communities (Beja and Alcazar, 2003; Snodgrass et al., 2000b;
Wellborn et al., 1996; Werner et al., 2007), and water-chemistry
characteristics relevant for amphibians (Hecnar and M’Closkey,
1996a; Houlahan and Findlay, 2003; Knutson et al., 2004). To
measure the pond hydroperiod, every pond was visited monthly
to assess the months of filling and desiccation in two years with
opposite hydrologic regimes (2003 and 2006). The annual rainfall,
measured from September (previous year) to August, was
549.5 mm in 2003, with abundant autumn rainfall (326.4 mm);
while it was 468 mm in 2006, a year of scarce autumn rainfall
(149.3 mm). Water physico-chemistry was sampled on three
different occasions (January 2003, May 2003, and March 2006).
We measured the following: electrical conductivity, pH, chloride
(Cl ), sulphate (SO42 ), sodium (Na þ), potassium (Kþ), magnesium
(Mg2þ), calcium (Ca2þ), photosynthetic pigments (CHL-A), dissolved inorganic phosphate (i-P) and dissolved inorganic nitrogen
(DIN) and the ratio between Naþ and Mg2þ (Naþ/Mg2þ). We did
not sample for water-related characteristics in 2004. A detailed
description of the sampling methodology, parameter values and
temporal variability are provided in Gómez-Rodríguez et al.
(2009).
2.3.2. Site and landscape characteristics (POND/LANDSCAPE)
We included the following characteristics: i) pond location
(geographic coordinates and altitude) and distance to key features
(sea, marshland, and road) to account for spatial structures in the
distribution of diversity; ii) pond area, which is a major structuring
force in pond communities (Beja and Alcazar, 2003; Burne and
Griffin, 2005; Werner et al., 2007), extracted from a pond
cartography built at a maximum inundation event (GómezRodríguez et al., 2008); iii) pond morphometry, which conditions
the availability of different microhabitats that each species may
require in a selective manner (Smith et al., 2003). We measured
pond slope and the percentage of different microhabitats within
each pond (see Gómez-Rodríguez et al., 2009 for details); iv)
percentage of pond shoreline immediately surrounded by dense
scrub vegetation, which increases pond shade, an important habitat
attribute for amphibians in some studies (Burne and Griffin, 2005;
Sztatecsny et al., 2004); v) the characteristics of the terrestrial
habitat because they provide refuge for amphibian species during
the dry season (mostly adjacent habitat, i.e., <200 m) and also
constitute the matrix that interconnects ponds (Gibbons, 2003). We
measured the percentage of surrounding terrestrial habitat (dune,
dune valley, rural path, xerophytic scrub, hygrophytic scrub, pine
forest, palustrine area, human-transformed area, marshes and
ecotone between the marshes and the aeolian sands) in two buffer
areas (200 m and 1000 m radius) from the edge of each pond; vi)
the distribution pattern of surrounding aquatic habitats, as
a measure of ecological connectivity in metapopulations/patchy
populations (Marsh and Trenham, 2001; Semlitsch, 2002). We
measured the distance to the nearest water body and the
percentage of flooded area and the number of ponds in the aforementioned buffer areas to discriminate complexes of ponds located
within the dispersal range of most amphibian species (<1000 m)
(Smith and Green, 2005) from those ponds located nearby
(<200 m). The rationale is that individuals may frequently move
among adjacent ponds, as Marsh et al. (1999) reported for tungara
frogs, and, therefore, encompass them as a single breeding site
(Petranka et al., 2004).
A detailed description of the sampling methodology and values
of these characteristics, except for the distance to key features and
terrestrial features, are provided in Gómez-Rodríguez et al. (2009).
We measured the distance to key features and percentage of
surrounding terrestrial habitat from orthophotos (Junta de
Andalucía, 2003) using ArcView GIS 3.2.
2.4. Data analysis
First, we described the spatial variation in amphibian diversity.
This first step is intended to demonstrate that biotic differences
exist among ponds prior to determining whether those differences
are related to environmental gradients. Since differences in the
number of species detected in a pond (species richness) are
provided elsewhere (Gómez-Rodríguez et al., 2010b), in this study
we only described the variation in assemblage composition (beta
diversity). We computed an unconstrained ordination of ponds,
Non Metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS) (Legendre and
Legendre, 1998) (command metaMDS, package vegan, R statistical
package), using the MorisitaeHorn dissimilarity index (Magurran,
2004) and the relative abundance of each species over the entire
study period, which was measured as catch-per-unit-effort
(number of larvae collected per sampling unit). We used this index
because it is not influenced by species richness gradients
(Magurran, 2004). To detect assemblage variation due to the
replacement of species, we should address comparisons of the
specific assemblage composition using dissimilarity indices independent of richness values (Baselga, 2010; Baselga et al., 2007;
Koleff et al., 2003). Schmidt and Pellet (2005) recommend the use
of abundance rather than presence/absence data because it
provides more information. We set the number of dimensions in
the NMDS ordination to two to reduce stress to values lower than
10%. We identified the species which significantly influenced the
ordination (envfit command, package vegan, R statistical package)
and tested the significance with 1000 permutations.
653
Second, we explored the relationships between environmental
variation and amphibian diversity patterns. We summarised the
environmental variation using Principal Components Analyses
(PCAs) with a varimax rotation. Because we aimed to disentangle
the effect of POND/LANDSCAPE and WATER variables and evaluate
relationships in the short-term (annual data) and in the medium
term (data from the entire study period), we computed the
following four PCAs: on POND/LANDSCAPE variables, on all WATER
variables, on WATER variables measured in 2003 and on WATER
variables measured in 2006. Missing values were substituted by the
mean value of the variable to maintain the size of the data set. In
each analysis, we retained PCA components that contributed to an
increase in explained variation higher than 10%.
We evaluated the PCA components as explanatory variables of
richness gradients and, independently, of variation in assemblage
composition, both on the medium term and on annual data. For
the richness gradient analyses, we conducted multiple regression
models (command “lm”, R software) using the number of species
recorded in a pond as the response variable. To explain the
variation in assemblage composition, we conducted Constrained
Analyses of Principal Coordinates (CAP) (Oksanen et al., 2007)
with command capscale (package vegan, R statistical package)
and preserved the MorisitaeHorn dissimilarity and relative
abundance data. Compared with traditional canonical analyses,
such as redundancy analysis (RDA) or constrained correspondence analysis (CCA), CAP has the advantage of accommodating
any dissimilarity measure through the use of principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) as an intermediate step, while also taking
into account the correlation structure among variables in the
response data (Arponen et al., 2008). In both statistical
approaches (regression and CAP models), we tested as predictors
POND/LANDSCAPE PCA components and, independently, WATER
PCA components corresponding to the sampling period of the
response variable (2003e2006, 2003 season or 2006 season).
Variables were selected using a manual step-forward procedure
and were based on significant contribution to the model. As an
additional step, we partitioned the variance explained by each
data set (POND/LANDSCAPE vs. WATER PCA) when all significant
predictors were included in a global model. Variation partitioning is a way of estimating how much of the variation of the
response variable can be attributed exclusively to one set of
factors once the effect of the other set has been taken into
account (Legendre and Legendre, 1998). In CAP analyses, we used
a variant of the method (“partial CAP”) for variance partitioning.
The significance of each data set was tested using permutations
of residuals under the reduced model (Legendre and Legendre,
1998).
Third, we conducted a specific set of analyses to evaluate the
role of the hydroperiod in structuring amphibian assemblages by
analysing its relationship with each type of diversity pattern as
follows: i) Richness gradient: We conducted a Pearson correlation to
assess the relationship between hydroperiod and species richness;
ii) Variation in assemblage composition: We examined a potential
nested pattern along the hydroperiod gradient by means of
a Spearman correlation between the hydroperiod value and the
nested rank of ponds. We measured nestedness using the Nestedness Temperature Calculator and empirically assessed its significance using 999 null models (commands nestedtemp and
command oecosimu, respectively, package vegan, R statistical
package). We also evaluated the role of the hydroperiod on species
replacement and on the replacement in species abundance among
ponds, using CAP analyses that tested the hydroperiod as a unique
predictor. Species replacement was measured from presence/
absence data and using the Simpson dissimilarity index, while the
replacement in species abundance among ponds was measured
with the MorisitaeHorn dissimilarity index. We used these
dissimilarity indices because they are not influenced by species
richness gradients (Magurran, 2004); iii) Variation in beta diversity:
We assessed whether the hydroperiod categories explained the
variation in beta diversity (i.e., analysis of beta diversity in the sense
of Tuomisto and Ruokolainen, 2006) and whether the hydroperiod
categories could be used to identify ponds with different
amphibian assemblages. We conducted an analysis of similarities
(ANOSIM) (Clarke, 1993) (anosim command, vegan package, R
statistical package) for each dissimilarity matrix (presence/absence
[Simpson] and relative abundance [MorisitaeHorn]), with hydroperiod category as the grouping factor (see hydroperiod categories
in Fig. 3 caption).
All hydroperiod analyses were conducted for both annual and
cumulative values of species richness and assemblage composition.
We related biotic data collected over the entire study period to both
the hydroperiod values measured in 2003 and in 2006 because we
hypothesised that the hydroperiod values for certain years
(extremely dry or wet) could influence pond fauna in the medium
term.
3. Results
3.1. Spatial variation in assemblage composition among ponds
(beta diversity)
We detected eight species, and all of them attempted reproduction each year. The following larvae counts were measured for
each species: Bufo calamita Laurenti, 1768, 1001 larvae; Pelobates
cultripes (Cuvier, 1829), 453 larvae; Discoglossus galganoi (Capula,
Nascetti, Lanza, Bullini and Crespo, 1985), 74 larvae; Pelophylax
perezi (Seoane, 1885), 7 larvae; Hyla meridionalis Boettger, 1874,
1541 larvae; Pleurodeles waltl (Michahelles, 1830), 107 larvae;
Triturus pygmaeus (Wolterstorff, 1905), 1603 larvae; and Lissotriton
boscai (Lataste, 1879), 176 larvae. We did not observe a marked
segregation among ponds based on their assemblage composition
(Fig. 1A). The ordination of ponds accounted for 90.13% of the
variation in pond assemblage composition (first axis ¼ 76.74%;
second axis ¼ 13.38%). Three groups of ponds were distinguishable:
two small groups dominated by the abundance of species breeding
in ephemeral ponds, such as B. calamita and D. galganoi [GROUP 1
and GROUP 2, respectively], and a larger group [GROUP 3], which
seemed to depict a succession from pond assemblages with a high
abundance of species breeding in ponds with a larger duration (i.e.,
P. cultripes, following Díaz-Paniagua, 1990) to pond assemblages
with a high abundance of species breeding in intermediate duration ponds (i.e., T. pygmaeus or H. meridionalis, following DíazPaniagua, 1990).
3.2. Relationship between environmental variation
and amphibian diversity patterns
3.2.1. Richness gradients
In the species richness analyses, we did not find a global model
including variables from both data sets (WATER and POND/LANDSCAPE) for any sampling period; therefore, we did not conduct
analyses of variation partitioning (Table 1). At least one WATER PCA
component significantly explained species richness for the entire
study period and in 2006; however, none was selected in the 2003
season. Conversely, a POND/LANDSCAPE PCA component significantly explained species richness in 2003, but no component was
selected in the regression models for data collected in 2006 or over
the entire study period. All models explained a low-moderate
percentage of the variance (R2 < 0.33).
654
C. Gómez-Rodríguez et al. / Acta Oecologica 36 (2010) 650e658
Dimension 2 (NMDS)
A
ephemeral
intermediate
long-duration
1.0
Table 1
Explained variance (R2) and significance (p) obtained in multiple regression analyses
for species richness in 2003, in 2006 and in the entire study period. Predictor set
(WATER vs. POND/LANDSCAPE) and number of predictors included in the final
model are shown. NS ¼ No potential predictor contributed significantly to explain
species richness.
O
B. calamita
0.5
T. pygmaeus
Sampling period
Variable set
Predictors
R2
p
2003e2006
WATER
POND/LANDSCAPE
WATER
POND/LANDSCAPE
WATER
POND/LANDSCAPE
1
NS
NS
1
1
NS
0.292
0.017
0.328
0.279
0.013
0.043
H. meridionalis
2003
0.0
2006
P. cultripes
D. galganoi
-0.5
GROUP 3
-1.0
-1.0
B
-0.5
0.0
0.5
Dimension 1 (NMDS)
1.0
1.5
0.6
Fig. 2). WATER and POND/LANDSCAPE variable sets significantly
explained the variation in assemblage composition when tested
independently (CAP analyses; Table 2). However, the unique
contribution (partial CAP analyses) of both sets was significant in
2006, while only WATER variables showed a significant unique
contribution in 2003. Notably, the fraction of explained variation
shared by both sets of variables was very low in 2006 (0.04%; Fig. 2).
3.3. The role of pond hydroperiods on amphibian diversity patterns
Dimension 2 (CAP)
0.4
P/L_PCA2
0.2
0.0
P/L_PCA1
WATER_PCA1
P/L_PCA4
WATER_PCA4
-0.2
WATER_PCA2
P/L_PCA5
-0.4
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Dimension 1 (CAP)
Fig. 1. Scaling of temporary ponds according to their faunal composition, measured as
relative abundance, considering the three years of study. Pond hydroperiod (ephemeral, intermediate and long duration) is indicated with different symbols. A/NMDs
ordination of ponds. Species vectors with significant squared correlation (p < 0.05)
with the resulting ordination were added to the ordination plot. B/Constrained ordination of ponds (CAP analysis) showing PCA components that significantly explained
differences in assemblage composition among ponds.
3.2.2. Variation in assemblage composition
Both WATER and POND/LANDSCAPE variable sets significantly
explained the variation in assemblage composition computed for
the entire study period (Table 2). The global model explained 58.4%
of the total variation (Fig. 2). When pooling both predictor sets to
compute partial CAPs, the POND/LANDSCAPE set alone significantly
explained 24.4% of the variance (Fig. 2 and Table 2). The unique
contribution of the WATER set was non-significant and resulted in
14.1% of the total variation explained. Fig. 1B shows that WATER
variables mostly explained the differences in species composition
among pond assemblages dominated by D. galganoi, while POND/
LANDSCAPE variables were related to differences in assemblage
composition in GROUP 3 (assemblages dominated by P. cultripes,
H. meridionalis or T. pygmaeus).
We obtained different results in the analyses for annual data.
The percentage of explained variation was lower than in the analysis for the entire study period (33.1% in 2003 and 40.3% in 2006;
The relevance of the hydroperiod to explain diversity patterns
differed between the years of study. In 2006, it significantly
explained species richness gradients, assemblage nestedness
(Fig. 3) and species replacement among assemblages when
measured with relative abundance data (Table 3). Conversely, we
did not find any significant relationship between hydroperiod and
amphibian diversity patterns in 2003 (Table 3). The hydroperiod
was significantly correlated with species richness when considering data from the entire study period. Hydroperiod values in
2003 also explained the variation in assemblage composition
measured during the entire study period. In particular, the hydroperiod significantly explained species replacement among ponds
when measured with relative abundance data and showed
a marginally significant relationship when it was measured with
presence/absence data. In general, the percentage of explained
variance was low in all beta diversity analyses (explained
variance < 20%) except in the nestedness analysis for 2006
(explained variance ¼ 70%). The percentage of variance explained
in the species richness analyses was higher (explained
variance 48%).
We obtained a low, but significant, ANOSIM R value when
analysing beta diversity in 2006 from relative abundance data. This
result shows that the assemblage composition of ponds with the
same hydroperiod were slightly similar, although we could not
Table 2
Pseudo-F and significance (p) obtained for each set of variables (WATER vs. POND/
LANDSCAPE variables) in explaining variation in assemblage composition with
Constrained Analyses of Principal Coordinates (CAP) for 2003, 2006 and the entire
study period. Significance of unique contribution for each set of variables was tested
with Partial CAPs. Number of axes is shown.
CAP
Sampling period Variable set
Axes Pseudo-F (p)
Partial CAP
Pseudo-F (p)
2003e2006
WATER
3
POND/LANDSCAPE 4
2.567 (p < 0.01) 1.249 (p ¼ 0.18)
2.769 (p < 0.01) 1.614 (p ¼ 0.03)
2003
WATER
1
POND/LANDSCAPE 1
5.638 (p < 0.01) 3.990 (p < 0.01)
2.881 (p ¼ 0.02) 1.570 (p ¼ 0.12)
2006
WATER
2
POND/LANDSCAPE 1
2.601 (p < 0.01) 2.375 (p ¼ 0.01)
4.597 (p < 0.01) 3.872 (p < 0.01)
We observed inter-annual differences in the relationship
between hydroperiod and pond diversity patterns, which would be
in accordance with inter-annual differences previously reported in
speciesehabitat relationships in the study area (Gómez-Rodríguez
et al., 2009). The hydroperiod was not an important factor
explaining amphibian diversity in 2003, when the pond hydroperiod was long (4e9 months). However, when the pond hydroperiod was shorter (<4 months), in 2006, we observed a gain of
species along the hydroperiod gradient but also observed small
differences in species predominance among assemblages. We
attribute the lack of relevance of the hydroperiod in 2003 to the fact
that amphibian species did not face strong desiccation stress
because the ponds were flooded for a longer period than the one
required for successful metamorphosis of all species in the area.
Additionally, inter-annual differences in the role of the hydroperiod
might be related not only to habitat suitability but also to habitat
availability. Given the strong intra-annual temporal segregation in
larval communities in the study area (Díaz-Paniagua, 1988), the
duration of a pond will also condition the number of species that
may potentially breed in it, independent of their ecological
requirements. Therefore, highly ephemeral pools (i.e., 1e2 months)
may not be flooded at the time of reproduction of some species,
example, 4 or 5 months) would be available habitats for all species.
Additionally, we observed inter-annual stability in the nestedness
patterns, as Azeria and Kolasa (2008) did in an aquatic invertebrate
community in a similar dynamic system. However, we found
different results in the associated hydroperiod gradient analyses.
Therefore, we hypothesise alternative mechanisms that may lead to
the observed nested pattern in amphibian assemblages in wet years
(i.e., 2003). Taking into account that habitat heterogeneity is related
to species richness in the study area (Gómez-Rodríguez et al.,
2008), we hypothesise that a plausible driver for this pattern
could be habitat nestedness, which is one of the main mechanisms
leading to biotic nestedness in the literature (Ulrich et al., 2009).
Focusing on amphibian assemblages in the medium term, the
pond hydroperiod correlated to species richness and explained some
P. perezi
D. galganoi
P. waltl
L. boscai
P. cultripes
P. p.
D. g.
P. c.
2003
P. p.
4.1. Relationships between hydroperiod and amphibian diversity
L-D
L-D
EPH
EPH
INT
EPH
INT
L-D
L-D
INT
EPH
EPH
INT
INT
EPH
INT
INT
EPH
L. b.
4. Discussion
2003-06
P. w.
discriminate pond groups given the low value of the statistic. The
ANOSIM R statistic should be above 0.75 to be relevant and,
thereby, assume that ponds can be grouped based on the factor of
interest (Clarke and Warwick, 2001).
L. b.
Fig. 2. Percentage of variation explained by Partial CAP analyses, identifying the total
[lines] and unique contribution [bars] of each subset (WATER variables vs. POND/
LANDSCAPE [P/L] variables) and the fraction of shared variation explained by both
subsets [bars]. Independent analyses were conducted on pond assemblage composition in 2003 season; 2006 season and in the entire study period (2003e2006).
D. g.
100
B. c.
80
H. m.
60
P. w.
40
Explained variance (%)
T. p.
20
H. m.
0
T. p.
2006 WATER P/L
L-D
INT
L-D
L-D
INT
EPH
EPH
INT
EPH
EPH
INT
L-D
INT
EPH
INT
EPH
EPH
INT
EPH
P. c.
P/L
B. calamita
2003 WATER
B. c.
P/L
T. pygmaeus
Unique P/L
Unique WATER
Shared
WATER
2003-06
655
H. meridionalis
C. Gómez-Rodríguez et al. / Acta Oecologica 36 (2010) 650e658
INT
L-D
L-D
INT
L-D
EPH
INT
EPH
INT
INT
EPH
INT
EPH
EPH
EPH
2006
Fig. 3. Nested matrix of amphibian presence/absence in the entire study period
(2003e2006), in 2003 and in 2006. Pond nomenclature corresponds to hydroperiod
categories. L-D ¼ long-duration temporary pond [8e9 months in 2003, 4 months in
2006], INT ¼ intermediate temporary pond [6e7 months in 2003, 3 months in 2006],
EPH ¼ ephemeral [4e5 months in 2003, 2 months in 2006]. Hydroperiod nomenclature from 2003 is applied to the matrix for the entire study period (2003e2006).
of the variation in assemblage composition, both in species presence
and relative abundance data. Even though the percentage of beta
diversity explained was low, it was similar to the one obtained by
Snodgrass et al. (2000a), who identified the hydroperiod as a major
force causing spatial turnover. Focusing on the variation in beta
diversity, the ANOSIM analyses proved that hydroperiod categories
656
C. Gómez-Rodríguez et al. / Acta Oecologica 36 (2010) 650e658
Table 3
Relationships between hydroperiod and amphibian diversity patterns, both measured each year (2003 biotic data and 2006 biotic data) and over the entire study period
(2003e2006 biotic data). For diversity data measured over the entire study period, relationships with hydroperiod values measured in 2003 and in 2006 are shown (year
indicated in brackets).
Data
2003-06 biotic data
2003 biotic data
2006 biotic data
Explaining alpha diversity
Richness gradients
Species richness
Pearson r ¼ 0.482; p ¼ 0.037 [2003]
Pearson r ¼ 0.486; p ¼ 0.048 [2006]
Pearson r ¼ 0.382; p ¼ 0.107
Pearson r ¼ 0.680; p ¼ 0.003
Explaining beta diversity
Nestedness
Presence/Absence
T ¼ 27.467; p ¼ 0.043,
Spearman r ¼ 0.234; p ¼ 0.350
T ¼ 11.483; p ¼ 0.005,
Spearman r ¼ 0.705; p ¼ 0.002
Species replacement
Presence/Absence
T ¼ 14.597; p ¼ 0.503
Spearman r ¼ 0.452; p ¼ 0.052 [2003]
Spearman r ¼ 0.409; p ¼ 0.082 [2006]
Explained variance ¼ 10.75% [2003]
Pseudo-F ¼ 2.047; p ¼ 0.08 [2003]
Explained variance ¼ 7.02% [2006]
Pseudo-F ¼ 1.283; p ¼ 0.25 [2006]
Explained variance ¼ 14.12% [2003]
Pseudo-F ¼ 2.797; p < 0.01 [2003]
Explained variance ¼ 7.84% [2006]
Pseudo-F ¼ 1.448; p ¼ 0.13 [2006]
Explained variance ¼ 6.51%,
Pseudo-F ¼ 1.115; p ¼ 0.21
Explained variance ¼ 4.70%,
Pseudo-F ¼ 0.690; p ¼ 0.96
Explained variance ¼ 4.32%,
Pseudo-F ¼ 0.723; p ¼ 0.56
Explained variance ¼ 20.04%,
Pseudo-F ¼ 3.259; p < 0.01
ANOSIM R ¼ 0.106; p ¼ 0.11
ANOSIM R ¼
ANOSIM R ¼
ANOSIM R ¼ 0.202; p ¼ 0.047
Relative abundance
Analysing beta diversity
Similar assemblage
composition
Presence/Absence
Relative abundance
ANOSIM
ANOSIM
ANOSIM
ANOSIM
R ¼ 0.043; p ¼ 0.294 [2003]
R ¼ 0.041; p ¼ 0.63 [2006]
R ¼ 0.008; p ¼ 0.47 [2003]
R ¼ 0.000; p ¼ 0.47 [2006]
could not identify satisfactorily different species assemblages. This
result was relatively surprising because the spatial variation in
assemblage composition among ponds resembled spatial segregation of species according to the pond hydroperiod. Consequently, we
attribute the lack of significance in the analyses of beta diversity to
the fact that we faced gradual, instead of discrete, variation, both in
the hydroperiod and faunal composition.
This study constitutes an important step towards the understanding of the hydroperiod’s role in amphibian diversity patterns.
We illustrate that the pond hydroperiod may be related to different
diversity patterns, even to antagonistic patterns (nested pattern vs.
species replacement), depending on the temporal time frame
considered. The following studies have already addressed the role of
the hydroperiod in some of these patterns: species richness (Beja
and Alcazar, 2003; Werner et al., 2007), nestedness (Baber et al.,
2004; Werner et al., 2007) and beta diversity (Snodgrass et al.,
2000a). However, this study is the first to provide an integral analysis of the role of the hydroperiod at any diversity level, including
variation in species richness, variation in assemblage composition
and variation in beta diversity. This study also takes into account
different types of variation in assemblage composition (beta diversity patterns), such as a nested pattern, turnover in species occurrence and turnover in species abundance. The overall conclusion is
that the pond hydroperiod may be a major driver of pond-breeding
assemblages only in years when the duration of the ponds is short,
yielding a strong nested pattern along a hydroperiod gradient.
Our results describe two conservation priorities in our study area
as follows: the preservation of ponds along the wide hydroperiod
range, and a concern for the preservation of ponds with long duration because they will provide breeding habitats for most species in
unfavourable years. Beja and Alcazar (2003) gave a similar recommendation for a different temporary ponds system. In general, it is
widely acknowledged that a wide spatial variability in pond
hydroperiods is required to maximise amphibian species diversity
because it will provide habitat for different species (Semlitsch,
2003). For our study area, this variability also increases the overall
abundance of species in the area, which results from the variability
in species dominance along the hydroperiod gradient.
0.027; p ¼ 0.55
0.065; p ¼ 0.757
4.2. Relationship between environmental/spatial variables and
amphibian diversity
We found inter-annual differences in the relevance of dynamic
and static predictors to explain both the variation in species richness and in assemblage composition. WATER variables had
a significant and unique contribution to the variation in assemblage
composition in both years, but they only explained richness
gradients in 2006, the drier year. Such inter-annual variability in
the relationship between water-chemistry and amphibian richness
gradients may explain why previous studies in different areas
provided contradictory results (Babbitt et al., 2006; Beja and
Alcazar, 2003; Brodman et al., 2003; Knutson et al., 2004). The
relevance of WATER variables to explain diversity patterns in
particular years is partially in agreement with our expectations
because we hypothesised that temporally variable characteristics
would be important drivers of annual diversity. However, we did
not expect that POND/LANDSCAPE variables would be the only
significant predictor of species richness in 2003. A plausible
explanation might be that, in 2003, a hydrologically favourable
year, there were no major environmental stresses precluding
species breeding attempts in the study area. This fact would have
favoured breeding of most individuals in the surroundings of
a pond independent of the particular characteristics for that year.
The presence of those individuals in the surroundings would be
related to more stable characteristics of the habitat (such as
terrestrial cover) because it would highly depend on the probability
of adult survival in the medium term.
Focusing on amphibian assemblages in the medium term, the
most remarkable result was the relevance of WATER variables to
explain amphibian richness, while POND/LANDSCAPE variables did
not. This result contradicts previous studies, which have reported
that water-chemistry variables play a minor part in affecting
amphibian species richness in the medium term (Hecnar and
M’Closkey, 1996a; Weyrauch et al., 2004). In fact, it suggests that
amphibian diversity in the medium term is also associated with
environmental variability in time. Consequently, species diversity
analyses should incorporate variables summarising the temporally
C. Gómez-Rodríguez et al. / Acta Oecologica 36 (2010) 650e658
variable characteristics of ponds even when studying diversity over
several years. A remarkable conclusion is that, despite the
hydrology and water chemistry of ponds are supposedly governed
by landscape features (Batzer et al., 2004), both sets of variables are
necessary to develop a realistic understanding of amphibian
diversity patterns in the study area, both when considering data
collected in particular years and over several years. It should be
clarified that we used dynamic predictors that intend to summarise
the hydrologic conditions in two years with largely different
hydrologic conditions. We avoided examining the relationships
between temporally variable characteristics measured at a particular point in time (i.e., May 2003) and diversity over the entire
study period because those would probably be spurious results and
lack ecological meaning. In that case, we would have related a given
invariant pond assemblage composition to a predictor that may
show different and independent values depending on the sampling
moment (see Gómez-Rodríguez et al., 2009). The inferred relationship would then depend on the date of habitat sampling. In
other words, we have taken into account the temporal scale of
variation in both habitat and biotic data to avoid spurious conclusions due to asynchrony between hypothesised causes (environmental characteristics) and the observed consequence (diversity).
Finally, our study also illustrates that environmental attributes
irrelevant for pond species richness (alpha diversity) might be
responsible for the variation in assemblage composition among
ponds (beta diversity) and, therefore, contribute to species diversity in the entire study area (gamma diversity). These results
reinforce the idea that beta diversity is a key concept for understanding the functioning of ecosystems, for conservation of biodiversity and for ecosystem management (Legendre et al., 2005).
Previous authors have also argued the necessity of complementing
species richness and community turnover assessments in conservation prioritisation (Arponen et al., 2008) or in the analysis of
macroecological patterns (Gañan et al., 2008). We argue that such
complements are also necessary in ecological studies relating
species diversity to habitat attributes at small scales. These studies
should include the various spatial scales at which relationships
between diversity and habitat characteristics may become manifest. Many authors suggest multi-scale measurements of habitat
attributes (Hazell et al., 2001; Van Buskirk, 2005); however, we
should also include a multi-scale perspective of diversity to avoid
disregarding environmental variables that may be relevant to the
increase in species diversity for the entire area.
Acknowledgements
We thank Margarita Florencio Díaz and Carlos Marfil Daza for
assistance with fieldwork. The Spanish Ministry of Science and
Innovation and the EU, FEDER program for funding (projects REN
2002-03759/GLO, CGL2006-04458/BOS and CGL2006-02247/BOS
and Fellowship grant AP-2001-3475 to C.G.-R.), the Spanish
Ministry of Labour and Immigration (unemployment subsidy to
C.G.-R.) and Junta de Andalucía (Excellence Research Project 932)
financed this work.
Appendix. Supplementary material
Supplementary material related to this article can be found at
doi:10.1016/j.actao.2010.10.002.
References
Arponen, A., Moilanen, A., Ferrier, S., 2008. A successful community-level strategy
for conservation prioritization. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 1436e1445.
657
Azeria, E.T., Kolasa, J., 2008. Nestedness, niche metrics and temporal dynamics of
a metacommunity in a dynamic natural model system. Oikos 117,
1006e1019.
Babbitt, K.J., Baber, M.J., Brandt, L.A., 2006. The effect of woodland proximity and
wetland characteristics on larval anuran assemblages in an agricultural landscape. Can. J. Zool. 84, 510e519.
Baber, M.J., Fleishman, E., Babbitt, K.J., Tarr, T.L., 2004. The relationship between
wetland hydroperiod and nestedness patterns in assemblages of larval
amphibians and predatory macroinvertebrates. Oikos 107, 16e27.
Baselga, A., Jiménez-Valverde, A., 2007. Environmental and geographical determinants of beta diversity of leaf beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in the Iberian
Peninsula. Ecol. Entomol. 32, 312e318.
Baselga, A., Jiménez-Valverde, A., Niccolini, G., 2007. A multiple-site similarity
measure independent of richness. Biol. Lett. 3, 642e645.
Baselga, A., 2008. Determinants of species richness, endemism and turnover in
European longhorn beetles. Ecography 31, 263e271.
Baselga, A., 2010. Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta
diversity. Glob. Ecol. Biog. 19, 134e143.
Batzer, D.P., Palik, B.J., Buech, R., 2004. Relationships between environmental
characteristics and macroinvertebrate communities in seasonal woodland
ponds of Minnesota. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 23, 50e68.
Beja, P., Alcazar, R., 2003. Conservation of Mediterranean temporary ponds under
agricultural intensification: an evaluation using amphibians. Biol. Conserv. 114,
317e326.
Borcard, D., Legendre, P., Drapeau, P., 1992. Partialling out the spatial component of
ecological variation. Ecology 73, 1045e1055.
Brodman, R., Ogger, J., Bogard, T., Long, A.J., Pulver, R.A., Mancuso, K., Falk, D., 2003.
Multivariate analyses of the influences of water chemistry and habitat parameters on the abundances of pond-breeding amphibians. J. Freshwater Ecol. 18,
425e436.
Burne, M.R., Griffin, C.R., 2005. Habitat associations of pool-breeding amphibians in
eastern Massachusetts, USA. Wetlands Ecol. Manag. 13, 247e259.
Church, D.R., 2008. Role of current versus historical hydrology in amphibian species
turnover within local pond communities. Copeia 115e125.
Clarke, K.R., Warwick, R.M., 2001. Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to
Statistical Analysis and Interpretation. Primer-E, Plymouth, UK.
Clarke, K.R., 1993. Nonparametric multivariate analyses of changes in community
structure. Aust. J. Ecol. 18, 117e143.
Colwell, R.K., Mao, C.X., Chang, J., 2004. Interpolating, extrapolating, and comparing
incidence-based species accumulation curves. Ecology 85, 2717e2727.
Díaz-Paniagua, C., 1988. Temporal segregation in larval amphibian communities in
temporary ponds at a locality in SW Spain. Amphibia-Reptilia 9, 15e26.
Díaz-Paniagua, C., 1990. Temporary ponds as breeding sites of amphibians at
a locality in southwestern Spain. Herpetol. J. 1, 447e453.
Fjeldsa, J., Lovett, J.C., 1997. Biodiversity and environmental stability. Biodivers.
Conserv. 6, 315e323.
Gañán, I., Baselga, A., Novoa, F., 2008. Diversity patterns in Iberian calathus (Coleoptera, Carabidae: Harpalinae): species turnover shows a story overlooked by
species richness. Environ. Entomol. 37, 1488e1497.
Gaston, K.J., 2000. Global patterns in biodiversity. Nature 405, 220e227.
Gibbons, J.W., 2003. Terrestrial habitat: a vital component for herpetofauna of
isolated wetlands. Wetlands 23, 630e635.
Gómez-Rodríguez, C., Bustamante, J., Koponen, S., Díaz-Paniagua, C., 2008. Highresolution remote-sensing data in amphibian studies: identification of breeding
sites and contribution to habitat models. Herpetol. J. 18, 103e113.
Gómez-Rodríguez, C., Díaz-Paniagua, C., Serrano, L., Florencio, M., Portheault, A.,
2009. Mediterranean temporary ponds as amphibian breeding habitats: the
importance of preserving pond networks. Aquat. Ecol. 43, 1179e1191.
Gómez-Rodríguez, C., Bustamante, J., Díaz-Paniagua, C., 2010a. Evidence of hydroperiod shortening in a preserved system of temporary ponds. Remote Sens. 2,
1439e1462.
Gómez-Rodríguez, C., Díaz-Paniagua, C., Bustamante, J., Portheault, A., Florencio, M.,
2010b. Inter-annual variability in amphibian assemblages: implications for
diversity assessment and conservation. Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst.
20, 668e677.
Gómez-Rodríguez, C., Guisan, A., Díaz-Paniagua, C., Bustamante, J., 2010c. Application of detection probabilities to the design of amphibian monitoring programs
in temporary ponds. Ann. Zool. Fennici 47 (5), 306e322.
Hazell, D., Cunningham, R., Lindenmayer, D., Mackey, B., Osborne, W., 2001. Use of
farm dams as frog habitat in an Australian agricultural landscape: factors
affecting species richness and distribution. Biol. Conserv. 102, 155e169.
Hecnar, S.J., M’Closkey, R.T., 1996a. Amphibian species richness and distribution in
relation to pond water chemistry in south-western Ontario, Canada. Freshwater
Biol. 36, 7e15.
Hecnar, S.J., M’Closkey, R.T., 1996b. Regional dynamics and the status of amphibians.
Ecology 77, 2091e2097.
Heyer, W.R., Donnelly, M.A., McDiarmid, R.W., Hayek, L.-A.C., Foster, M.S., 1994.
Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity. Standard Methods for
Amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington & London.
Houlahan, J.E., Findlay, C.S., 2003. The effects of adjacent land use on wetland
amphibian species richness and community composition. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
60, 1078e1094.
Houlahan, J.E., Currie, D.J., Cottenie, K., Cumming, G.S., Ernest, S.K.M., Findlay, C.S.,
Fuhlendorf, S.D., Gaedke, U., Legendre, P., Magnuson, J.J., McArdle, B.H.,
Muldavin, E.H., Noble, D., Russell, R., Stevens, R.D., Willis, T.J., Woiwod, I.P.,
658
C. Gómez-Rodríguez et al. / Acta Oecologica 36 (2010) 650e658
Wondzell, S.M., 2007. Compensatory dynamics are rare in natural ecological
communities. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 3273e3277.
Hutchinson, G.E., 1957. Population Studies e Animal Ecology and Demography e
Concluding Remarks. 22, 415e427.
Junta de Andalucía, 2003. Ortofotografía Digital de Andalucía. Junta de Andalucía.
Knutson, M.G., Richardson, W.B., Reineke, D.M., Gray, B.R., Parmelee, J.R., Weick, S.E.,
2004. Agricultural ponds support amphibian populations. Ecol. Appl. 14,
669e684.
Koleff, P., Gaston, K.J., Lennon, J.J., 2003. Measuring beta diversity for presenceeabsence data. J. Anim. Ecol. 72, 367e382.
Legendre, P., Legendre, L., 1998. Numerical Ecology. Elsevier Science.
Legendre, P., Borcard, D., Peres-Neto, P.R., 2005. Analyzing beta diversity: partitioning the spatial variation of community composition data. Ecol. Monogr. 75,
435e450.
Leibold, M.A., Mikkelson, G.M., 2002. Coherence, species turnover, and boundary
clumping: elements of meta-community structure. Oikos 97, 237e250.
Leips, J., McManus, M.G., Travis, J., 2000. Response of treefrog larvae to drying
ponds: comparing temporary and permanent pond breeders. Ecology 81,
2997e3008.
Lobo, J.M., Castro, I., Moreno, J.C., 2001. Spatial and environmental determinants of
vascular plant species richness distribution in the Iberian Peninsula and
Balearic Islands. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 73, 233e253.
Magurran, A.E., 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing.
Maret, T.J., Snyder, J.D., Collins, J.P., 2006. Altered drying regime controls distribution of endangered salamanders and introduced predators. Biol. Conserv. 127,
129e138.
Marsh, D.M., Trenham, P.C., 2001. Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian
conservation. Conserv. Biol. 15, 40e49.
Marsh, D.M., Fegraus, E.H., Harrison, S., 1999. Effects of breeding pond isolation
on the spatial and temporal dynamics of pond use by the tungara frog,
Physalaemus pustulosus. J. Anim. Ecol. 68, 804e814.
Oksanen, J., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., O’Hara, B., 2007. vegan: Community Ecology
Package. R Package Version 1.8-5. available at. http://cran.r-project.org/.
Parris, K.M., 2004. Environmental and spatial variables influence the composition of
frog assemblages in sub-tropical eastern Australia. Ecography 27, 392e400.
Patterson, B.D., Atmar, W., 1986. Nested subsets and the structure of insular
mammalian faunas and archipelagoes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 28, 65e82.
Pechmann, J.H.K., Scott, D.E., Gibbons, J.W., Semlitsch, R.D., 1989. Influence
of wetland hydroperiod on diversity and abundance of metamorphosing
amphibians. Wetlands Ecol. Manag. 1, 3e11.
Petranka, J.W., Smith, C.K., Scott, A.F., 2004. Identifying the minimal demographic
unit for monitoring pond-breeding amphibians. Ecol. Appl. 14, 1065e1078. Ricklefs,
R.E., Schluter, D., 1993. Species Diversity in Ecological Communities:
Historical and Geographical Perspectives. University of Chicago, Chicago.
Rivas-Martínez, S., Costa, M., Castroviejo, S., Valdés, E., 1980. Vegetación de Doñana
(Huelva, España). Lazaroa 2, 5e189.
Schmidt, B.R., Pellet, J., 2005. Relative importance of population processes and
habitat characteristics in determining site occupancy of two anurans. J. Wildl.
Manage. 69, 884e893.
Semlitsch, R.D., 2002. Principles for management of aquatic-breeding amphibians.
J. Wildl. Manage. 64, 615e631.
Semlitsch, R.D. (Ed.), 2003. Amphibian Conservation. Smithsonian Books,
Washington and London.
Siljeström, P.A., Moreno, A., García, L.V., Clemente, L.E., 1994. Doñana National Park
(south-west Spain): geomorphological characterization through a soil-vegetation study. J. Arid Environ. 26, 315e323.
Smith, M.A., Green, D.M., 2005. Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm
in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations
metapopulations? Ecography 28, 110e128.
Smith, G.R., Dingfelder, H.A., Vaala, D.A., 2003. Distribution and abundance of
amphibian larvae within two temporary ponds in Central Ohio, USA. J. Freshwater Ecol. 18, 491e496.
Snodgrass, J.W., Bryan Jr., A.L., Burger, J., 2000a. Development of expectations of
larval amphibian assemblage structure in southeastern depression wetlands.
Ecol. Appl. 10, 1219e1229.
Snodgrass, J.W., Komoroski, M.J., Bryan Jr., A.L., 2000b. Relationships among isolated
wetland size, hydroperiod, and amphibian species richness: Implications for
wetlands regulations. Conserv. Biol. 14, 414e419.
Soininen, J., Lennon, J.J., Hillebrand, H., 2007. A multivariate analysis of beta
diversity across organisms and environments. Ecology 88, 2830e2838.
Stiling, P., 1999. Ecology: Theories and Applications. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Sztatecsny, M., Jehle, R., Schmidt, B.R., Arntzen, J.W., 2004. The abundance of premetamorphic newts (Triturus cristatus, T. marmoratus) as a function of habitat
determinants: an a priori model selection approach. Herpetol. J. 14, 89e97.
Trenham, P.C., Koenig, W.D., Mossman, M.J., Stark, S.L., Jagger, L.A., 2003. Regional
dynamics of wetland-breeding frogs and toads: turnover and synchrony. Ecol.
Appl. 13, 1522e1532.
Tuomisto, H., Ruokolainen, K., 2006. Analyzing or explaining beta diversity?
Understanding the targets of different methods of analysis. Ecology 87,
2697e2708.
Ulrich, W., Almeida, M., Gotelli, N.J., 2009. A consumer’s guide to nestedness
analysis. Oikos 118, 3e17.
Van Buskirk, J., 2005. Local and landscape influence on amphibian occurrence and
abundance. Ecology 86, 1936e1947.
Wellborn, G.A., Skelly, D.K., Werner, E.E., 1996. Mechanisms creating community
structure across a freshwater habitat gradient. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27, 337e363.
Werner, E.E., Skelly, D.K., Relyea, R.A., Yurewicz, K.L., 2007. Amphibian species
richness across environmental gradients. Oikos 116, 1697e1712.
Weyrauch, S.L., Grubb, J., Thomas, C., 2004. Patch and landscape characteristics
associated with the distribution of woodland amphibians in an agricultural
fragmented landscape: an information-theoretic approach. Biol. Conserv. 115,
443e450.